Tuesday, August 23, 2016

Cardinal Joao Braz de Aviz,President and Fr.Sabino Ardito ,Secretary respectively of the Congregation for Institutes of Religious Life and Societies of Apostolic Life arenotallowing Catholics to affirmimplicit, invisible for usbaptism of desire along with the literal and traditional interpretation of the dogmaextra ecclesiam nulla salus (Feeneyite).All Catholic religious communities must accept that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance arevisible to us on earth, we know these cases in real life. This is alie.1

It is a lie being forced upon on all religious communities including the Franciscans of the Immaculate.This is a lie which is being imposed also on Fr.Stefano Manelli, the founder of the Franciscans of the Immaculate.

All members of the Franciscans of the Immaculate must have the right to be rational and truthful.

They must have the right to affirm the defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus along with salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II (LG 16, UR 3, LG 8 etc) as beingimplicit and invisible for usand notexplicit, visible in the flesh.They must have the right to say that they cannot see the dead who are now saved in Heaven.

All the religious communities, Dominicans, Jesuits, Carmelites , Franciscans, must have the right to affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salusalong with salvation (LG 14- those who know and do not enter) asbeing implicit for usand explicit only for God.

So could the Manelli family members confirm that:

1. They affirm Vatican Council II along with the traditional, centuries-old interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation. The text of the dogma does not mention any exceptions. Neither do they know of any exceptions in 2016.

2. Also could they ask Fr.Sabino Ardito and Cardinal Joao Braz de Aviz if they affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or do they assume there arevisible exceptions known to them in 2016and these exceptions are mentioned in Vatican Council II.

Are they lying intentionally?

Are they forcing thislieon on religious communities including the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate who offer only the Traditional Latin Mass?

Could the members of the Third Order and especially the Manelli family members clarify this issue personally or ask their lawyer to do so.

According to Canon LawCardinal Joao Braz de Aviz and Fr.Sabino Ardito need to affirm all the teachings of the Catholic Church.

1. Explicit for us baptism of desire is not a teaching of the Catholic Church.

It's a false inference.

I affirm implicit for baptism of desire.

2. It is not allowed to deny an ex cathedra dogma, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which Pope Pius XII called an 'infallible teaching' (Letter of the Holy Office 1949).With explicit for us baptism of desire they are rejecting the dogma EENS, like the rest of the Vatican Curia.

Presently there is doctrinal ambiguity and they usea falsehood to interpret Vatican Council II, which makes the Council a break with the past.

Why must Catholics accept Vatican Council II with this irrationality ? Fr.Lombardi will not answer.

Catholics are being forced to proclaima lie and are persecuted if they do not conform.This is coercion. It is illegal.

There has been a factual error in the Marchetti Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which the F.I are not obliged to follow.No Catholic should be obliged to follow it.

Pope Francis, Cardinal Muller and Cardinal Ladaria refuse to accept a Vatican Council II in which Lumen Gentium 16 ( saved in invincible ignorance) are seen as being invisible on earth for us.Instead for them it refers to seen in the flesh cases in 2016.

So they conclude that Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II is a visible exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

They want the SSPX to interpret and accept Vatican Council II with this irrationality.(The SSPX is already using the same irrational reasoning but are rejecting the non- traditional conclusion)

This is unethical. It is also dishonest. This is lie by Catholic religious.

Fischer More College and the Franciscans of the Immaculate had to accept these lies to be able to offer the Traditional Latin Mass.Being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), elements of sanctification and truth (LG 8), good and holy things in other religions (NA 2), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3), seeds of the Word (AG 11) are implicit, invisible in personal cases and hypothetical for us all.

The FFI and FMC were expected to assume that these cases are visible, explicit and , known in reality in 2016 for them. Only if they made this objective error in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus could they be allowed to offer the TLM. They had toLIE.

Cardinals and bishops do not know the name of anyone saved outside the Catholic Church in 2016. Yet the FMC and FFI had to assume that there are such persons. This is another LIE.

The FSSP and the Institute of Christ the King are allowed to offer the Traditional Latin Mass since they have chosen to compromise.They have chosen to lie.

I interpret the following terms with Feeneyism and Cardinal Joao Braz de Aviz and Fr.Sabino Ardito do so with Cushingism(so does the SSPX)

I useFeeneyismand Cardinal Joao Braz de Aviz and Fr.Sabino Ardito use Cushingism.

For me theBaptism of DesireisFeeneyiteand for them it isCushingite.

For me Invincible IgnoranceisFeeneyite and for them it isCushingite.

For meVatican Council II isFeeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.

For me Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus isFeeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.

For me the Nicene Creed isFeeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.

For me the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston isFeeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.

I avoid the New Theology, while they uses it.

For me the Catechism of the Catholic ChurchisFeeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.

-Lionel Andrades

TERMS EXPLAINED

Feeneyism: It is the old theology and philosophical reaoning which says there are no known exceptions past or present, to the dogma EENS.There are no explicit cases to contradict the traditional interpretation of EENS.

Cushingism: It is the new theology and philosophical reasoning, which assumes there are known exceptions, past and present, to the dogma EENS, on the need for all to formally enter the Church.It assumes that the baptism of desire etc are not hypothetical but objectively known.In principle hypothetical cases are objective in the present times.

Baptism of Desire (Feeneyite): It refers to the hypothetical case of an unknown catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is an invisible case in our reality it is not relevant to the dogma EENS.

Baptism of Desire (Cushingite):It refers to the known case of a catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is a visible case or the SSPX it is relevant to the dogma EENS.

Invincible Ignorance ( Feeneyite): This refers to the hypothetical case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.

Invincible Ignorance (Cushingite): This refers to the explicit case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.Since it is an exception to the dogma EENS it is assumed to be objectively known in particular cases.This reasoning is irrational.

Council of Florence.One of the three Councils which defined the dogma EENS.It did not mention any exceptions.It did not mention the baptism of desire. It was Feeneyite.

Liberal theologians:They reinterpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as objective cases, known in the present times.

Vatican Council II (Cushingite): It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II with Cushingism.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer not to hypothetical but known cases in the present times. So Vatican Council II emerges as a break with the dogma EENS.

Vatican Council II (Feeneyite):It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II with Feeneyism.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to hypothetical cases, which are unknown personally in the present times.So Vatican Council II is not a break with EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, ecumenism of return, the Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite-one baptism),the teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation and the non separation of Church and State( since all need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell).

Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston. It assumed hypothetical cases were defacto known in the present times. So it presented the baptism of desire etc as an explicit exception, to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.It censured Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.Since they did not assume that the baptism of desire referred to a visible instead of invisible case.The Letter made the baptism of desire etc relevant to EENs.From the second part of this Letter has emerged the New Theology.

Letter of the Holy Office 1949 ( Feeneyite). It means accepting the Letter as Feeneyite based on the first part .It supports Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.The traditional interpretatiion of the dogma EENS does not mention any exceptions.

Letter of the Holy Office ( Cushingite). It is based on the second part of the Letter.It rejects the traditional interpretation of EENS. Since it considers the baptism of desire ( Cushingite-explicit) and being saved in invincible ignorance ( Cushingite-explicit cases) as being exceptions to EENS ( Feeneyite).It worngly assumes hypothetical cases are objectively visible and so they are exceptions to the first part of the Letter.

Baltimore Catechism.It assumed that the desire for the baptism of an unknown catechumen, who dies before receiving it and was saved, was a baptism like the baptism of water. So it was placed in the Baptism Section of the catechism. In other words it was wrongly assumed that the baptism of desire is visible and repeatable like the baptism of water or that we can administer it like the baptism of water.

(The Baltimore Catechism is accepted with the confusion)Catechism of Pope X. It followed the Baltimore Catechism and placed the baptism of desire in the Baptism Section.

Nicene Creed ( Cushingite) It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' and means there are more than three known baptisms. They are water, blood, desire, seeds of the Word etc.

Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite). It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and means there is one known baptism the baptism of water.

New Theology: It refers to the new theology in the Catholic Church based on hypothetical cases being objective in the present times.So it eliminates the dogma EENS.With the dogma EENS made obsolete the ecclesiology of the Church changes. There is a new ecclesiology which is a break with Tradition.

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( Cushingite) .It refers to the dogma but with exceptions.All do not need to defacto convert into the Church in the present times, since there are exceptions.

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( Feeneyite).It refers to the dogma as it was interpreted over the centuries.There are no known exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church, with faith and baptism, to avoid Hell.

Catechism of the Catholic Church( Cushingite).CCC 1257 contradicts the Principle of Non Contraduction. Also CCC 848 is based on the new theology and so is a rupture with the dogma EENS( Feeneyite).

Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Feeneyite).CCC 1257 does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction since there are no known exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. There are no known exceptions, since God is not limited to the Sacraments.

When CCC 846 states all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church,CCC 846 does not contradict the dogmatic teaching on all needin to formally enter the Church. CCC 846 does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which states all need faith and baptism for salvation.

________________________

1.

FEBRUARY 7, 2014

Third Order members of the Franciscans of the Immaculate clarify Cardinal Braz and Fr.Fidenzio Volpi's position : all religious communities must accept implicit or explicit salvation http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/02/third-order-members-of-franciscans-of.html#links

All these years the SSPX made a big thing about doctrine and they were right in doing so.Now it must come as a surprise or shock, for those among them who discern, that they were all along wrong on Catholic doctrine.

Their theology created a rupture with Tradition.

They followed the pre-Council of Trent teachings of the Church,which have not changed but then they applied the new theology to the old doctrines.The conclusions were new, innovative, non traditional and irrational.They were not aware of the ruse of the liberals and Masons.

Now (2016) they could have realised that Church documents and teachings- Nicene Creed, dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS),Vatican Council II, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Letter of the Holy Office 1949 can be interpreted with the theology of Feeneyism or Cushingism and one of them is irrational .They are using the irrational one.

Once the problem has been identified it can be solved.

They simply have to interpret these magisterial teachings and documents with traditional Feeneyism.This means they have to avoid the New Theology which has come in a direct way from the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.A

An objective mistake was made in the Letter when it assumed hypothetical cases were not hypothetical but objectively visible in the present times.The same error was repeated in Vatican Council II and so there are superficial passages ( LG 14,LG 16 etc) which create ambiguity.

The same error and ambiguity is also there in Dominus Iesus and Redemptoris Missio which are Cushingite and not Feeneyite.There are Feeneyite passages in them but over all the theology is Cushingite.

The SSPX needs to be aware of this and correct their doctrinal position on Vatican Council II.They need to admit that Vatican Council II Cushingite is a rupture with Tradition but Vatican Council II Feeneyite is in line with the dogma EENS as it was known to the 16th century missionaries.

So when Pope Benedict XVI a few months back said that EENS was no more like it was in the 16th century this was based on Cushingite theology, the new theology which he and Fr.Karl Rahner S.J advocated.

Without this theology, EENS is once again today (2016) as it was for the Jesuit missionaries in the Middle Ages.

The SSPX must ask Pope Benedict XVI to come back to the Faith.Rome must come back to the Faith as Archbishop Lefebvre wanted.They can do this by interpreting Vatican Council II and other magisterial teachings with rational Feeneyism.

Ask Archbishop Guido Pozzo if Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Cushingism( as done by the Vatican Curia) or with Feeneyism( as I interpret the Council) and if Cushingism can be replaced with Feeneyism, by all.

-Lionel Andrades

I interpret the following terms with Feeneyism and the SSPX does so with Cushingism.The SSPX could agree or disagree with me here

In this way we can have a Cushingite or Feeneyite Vatican Council II.The Cushingite interpretation is irrational.However it is the interpretation of the SSPX and that of Fr. Aldo Rossi and the other SSPX priests in Italy